The birth of science fiction
According to Wikipedia Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. But of course nobody ever observed life arising from non-life. All we observe is life arising from pre-existing life or life becoming non-life. Nevertheless Wikipedia calls this incredible miracle a natural process. But there is of course nothing natural to it. Even all the experiments which didn't produce any life from non-life were not "natural", but were done by means of intelligent design in labs. So here starts another evolutionary fairy tale...
Frankenstein author Mary Shelley wrote...
Many and long were the conversations between Lord Byron and Shelley, to which I was a devout but nearly silent listener. During one of these, various philosophical doctrines were discussed, and among others the nature of the principle of life, and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered and communicated. They talked of the experiments of Dr. Darwin, ... who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion. Not thus, after all, would life be given. Perhaps a corpse would be re-animated; galvanism had given token of such things: perhaps the component parts of a creature might be manufactured, brought together, and endured with vital warmth.
source source
Frankenstein was published in 1818 by Mary Shelley. In the preface to the 1818 Edition of Frankenstein Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote THE event on which this fiction is founded has been supposed, by Dr. Darwin, and some of the physiological writers of Germany, as not of impossible occurrence. In its introduction and preface is direct mention of Erasmus Darwin who believed in spontaneous generation, the incredible and erroneous belief in ongoing spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter. There is a clear link between the rise of Darwinism in the 19th century and the birth of modern-day science fiction. Later emerged Social Darwinism by which the same Victorian aristocracy tried to justify the extreme inequality imposed on the world in favor of themselves.
The process in which life forms arise from similar life forms. It asserts that living things can only be produced by another living thing, and not by a non-living thing. It is now a common notion that any living thing can only come from another living thing, and no cellular life has ever been observed to arise from non-living matter. For example, a spider lays eggs that will develop into spiders.
People with at least one functioning eye in their head already knew it by means of everyday observation, but in 1859 Louis Pasteur also scientifically proved that life only comes from life. But even hardcore science never kept hardnosed evolutionists from their fantastic belief in scientifically impossible fantasies. Pasteur once said that Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. Those materialistic philosophers never gave up their search for the philosopher's stone...
The philosopher's stone
Charles Darwin wrote...
It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
The belief in evolution makes people believe in the most ridiculous and unscientific ideas. It is every evolutionist's wet dream, to create life from non-life, or better, to have nature create life from dead matter. After the birth of science fiction the neverending search for the philosopher's stone continued. Alexander Oparin invented a so-called primordial soup and added sunlight and lightning to the fantastic story. Of course many evolutionists cried "hosanna". But as any mentally sane person simply knows, nourishment and sunlight are necessary for life, but neither soup, nor sunlight, nor lightning, create life, on the contrary. Another well known experiment was the Miller and Urey experiment. Although evolutionists like to boast about it, the result of that experiment was, as could be expected from mixing the necessary ingredients by means of intelligent intervention, some amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are long chains of amino acids in a specific order created by DNA and the cell machinery. Amino acids are not even close to the complex machinery of a living cell. One can find stones in nature, but nature never produced a skyscraper with those stones. Of course every mentally sane person knows that no mindless naturalistic process exists with the creative power needed to create something as incredibly complex as a living cell because creation simply requires a creator. But hardcore reality has never kept evolutionists from denying the obvious...
"The key thing," Szostak says, "is to get started: to go from zero genes to one gene." This moment of "getting started" is the focus of Szostak's research: to discover the first "living chemistry", or, as Szostak puts it, "that transition from chemistry to biology": when a clump of molecules first became a living thing.
source screenshot
All experiments concerning "spontaneous" generation required massive input of intelligence. The many origin of life hypotheses, contradicting each other, show that the "professors" do not agree. Despite all the big words coming from the world of mainstream science the conclusion is that no one has yet synthesized a protocell using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life. Far from it. It seems these people don't quite grasp the complexity of an event like that...
Specified complexity
Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.
Of course building a functioning cell - at least one that in some way resembles the cells we actually observe today - would have required more than just the genetic information that directs protein synthesis. It would have also required, at very least, a suite of preexisting proteins and RNA molecules - polymerases, transfer RNA's, ribosomal RNA's, synthetases, and ribosomal proteins, for example - to process and express the information stored in DNA. In fact, there are over 100 specific proteins involved in a simple bacterial translation system; roughly 20 more are involved in transcription and over 30 in DNA replication. ... Beyond that, the first cell would have required some kind of semipermeable membrane and a cell wall to protect itself and the chemical reactions taking place inside it. ... The integrated complexity of even a "minimally complex cell" has made it difficult to calculate the odds of all the necessary components of such a system arising in close association with one another by chance alone. ... To say that scientific laws generate complex informational patterns is essentially a contradiction in terms.
In order to explain the origin of first life one must explain the coming into existence of a cell, the basic unit of life. The cell is a prime example of an incredibly complex machine which contains biomolecules like proteins and incredibly complex genetic code like RNA and DNA. Paul Davies said that Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity. Specified complexity is more than just complexity. Specified information is useless without some kind of translation and copying machinery. A cell is irreducibly complex which means that it won't function if any of its many complex subparts is not present and in its proper specific organization. Paul Davies said that Even the simplest bacterium is incomparably more complicated than any chemical brew ever studied. Even a small step in the process towards such an incredibly complex cell, like the necessity of 20 amino acids in exactly the right order, is called one of the mysteries surrounding the evolution of life.
Specified information
The amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica, an amazing 384 volumes worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! But the size of a DNA molecule is only two millionths of a millimeter thick. In order for there to be anything resembling a language it must meet the following criteria; an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose. It has been discovered that DNA meets all of these requirements and in fact, it has all of the same properties as any computer code or language does.
At the close of the nineteenth century, most biologists thought life consisted solely of matter and energy. But after Watson and Crick, biologists came to recognize the importance of a third fundamental entity in living things: information. And this discovery would redefine, from that point forward, what theories about the origin of life would need to explain.
Specific regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of "sequence specificity" or "specified complexity" that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. Just as the letters in the alphabet of a written language may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do the sequences of nucleotide bases (the A's, T's, G's, and C's) inscribed along the spine of a DNA molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell.
Bill Gates said that DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. Everybody knows that computer code doesn't come falling from thin air by means of mindless naturalistic processes. Then where did the much more complex genetic code come from? For explaining the origin of life scientists must also explain the origin of specified information contained in each life form's unique DNA and RNA. Information is subject to entropy. See information entropy. It is impossible for specified information to arise naturally in a mindless world only by means of mindless naturalistic processes. Information is more than just matter, it contains a message encoded by other parts of the cell. Like a language has a sender and a receiver who both understand the language, otherwise there is no communication and no understanding. When for example a computer processes code it has to decode it in order to convert the code into a corresponding action. Another example of irreducible complexity. In this case the sender is useless without the receiver, and vice versa. Specified information itself is not materially based. See also Semiotics.
Intelligent design
No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?
When I realized that it was far more reasonable to reject the chance hypothesis for the origin of functional genes and proteins, I concluded that chance was not a terribly promising candidate for "best explanation" of the DNA enigma. Chance was certainly not a more reasonable explanation than its negation, namely, that something other than chance had been at work in the origin of biological information.
The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macromolecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.
The DNA enigma: Where does the specified information come from? Michael Denton wrote that The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. The more we know about the specified complexity of life by means of true science, the greater the miracle of life becomes. And miracles don't happen naturally. Because of this fact scientists like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe wrote it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. They went on to mention higher intelligences as the most likely cause. This has even led people to search for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, a theory called panspermia. Steven A. Benner said that we went looking on Mars because the origins-of-life options on Earth just aren't looking very good *.
RNA world hypothesis
The problems associated with the RNA world hypothesis are well known. In the following I discuss some of these difficulties, some of the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed, and some of the problems with these alternative models. From a biosynthetic — as well as, arguably, evolutionary — perspective, DNA is a modified RNA, and so the chicken-and-egg dilemma of "which came first?" boils down to a choice between RNA and protein. This is not just a question of cause and effect, but also one of statistical likelihood, as the chance of two such different types of macromolecule arising simultaneously would appear unlikely.
In the very first cell (assuming that there was a "first" cell) what came first - the DNA or the protein? Of course, the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the protein could not be there first since its code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes. Proteins would have to decode themselves before they could exist. So obviously, without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never be made. Likewise, the DNA could not have been there first since DNA is made and maintained by the proteins of the cell. Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA. ... This really is quite a problem to try and explain. After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence?
Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it. Judging by the volume of literature, both experimental and theoretical, the inquiry has thrived prodigiously. But unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of life's origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation; and this suggests that we may still be missing some essential insight.
Because the step from dead matter to a living cell is inexplainable by means of naturalistic processes evolutionists invent all kinds of theories to seemingly bridge that gap. Their latest attempt is the so-called RNA world hypothesis. But all they do is shift the problem. No matter how one looks at it, life is irreducibly complex. Evolutionists just can't wrap their heads around it.
Atheist delusion
Evolutionitwit Richard Dawkins said...
It may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck... the origin of the eucaryotic cell ... was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life. The origin of consciousness might be another major gap...
Lord Kelvin said: I need scarcely say that the beginning and maintenance of life on earth is absolutely and infinitely beyond the range of sound speculation in dynamical science. As funny evolutiontit Carl Sagan famously said, the truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. According to science we should follow the evidence where it leads. Evolutionists obviously don't do that.